Paul Elovitz: An Appreciation

I first met Paul Elovitz at the early meetings of the International Psychohistorical Association. Then, I became acquainted with his scholarly work from his monograph on Jimmy Carter and his chapter, “Three Days in Plains,” which featured his interview with the future president’s mother. From those days onward, Paul has become one of the preeminent psychohistorians in the field.

If Lloyd deMause can be called a radical innovator in psychohistory, Paul Elovitz can be called a most welcome consolidator. Formally trained in both history and psychoanalysis, Paul has been able to build on Lloyd’s work and add considerably to it in three important ways.

First, Paul organized several institutional entities, including the Psychohistory Forum in 1982 and Clio’s Psyche in 1994. These innovations enabled psychohistory to grow and include people who might otherwise have been dissuaded by the intellectual excesses and wild analysis of some early psychohistorians.

Second, Paul’s scholarly work has been consistently prolific over the years on a staggering range of topics. His two most recent books, The Making of Psychohistory (2018) and The Many Roads of the Builders of Psychohistory (2021), serve as a defining consolidation of the field that had never been done before. The only draw-

Page 254

back to these two books is that they underplayed Paul’s role in sustaining the field’s existence in hard times and promoting its growth thereafter.

Third, Paul’s strength as a leader has been his personality. He is an optimist, a supporter, and an enthusiast. This shows in his written work and, more importantly, in how he deals with people. I have received many phone calls and notes from Paul over the years encouraging me to contribute a paper or a book review, and he has always been supportive when I do. I am sure he has repeated this approach with others many, many times. His enthusiasm for psychohistory has always been positive and contagious.

Paul is one of the most important reasons psychohistory stands on a much firmer intellectual and institutional footing than ever before. Recognition of his many contributions to psychohistory is long overdue!

Page 255